Bill C-92 (Historical)

An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families

This enactment affirms the rights and jurisdiction of Indigenous peoples in relation to child and family services and sets out principles applicable, on a national level, to the provision of child and family services in relation to Indigenous children, such as the best interests of the child, cultural continuity and substantive equality.

An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families

[Seamus O'Regan, Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.]

moved that Bill C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to open second reading debate on Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families. Before I go any further, it is important to recognize that we are gathered on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

My remarks today will focus on three key areas: first, how Bill C-92 aligns with this government's commitment to renewal of the relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples; second, the importance of child welfare generally and the necessity of cultural protections in child welfare regimes; and third, how implementation of this bill would allow for greater protection of vulnerable children, youth and families while recognizing and affirming the inherent right of indigenous peoples to self-determination.

I cannot in good conscience stand in this House today without recognizing the important work done by the member for Markham—Stouffville. The member got us started on this road, and we cannot forget her accomplishments as Canada's first minister of indigenous services. We are very grateful for what she did during her time.

While we are providing credit where it is due, I must acknowledge the role of the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations in bringing the bill forward. Her commitment to renewing the relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples is clear and it is unflagging. It is my pleasure to stand and recognize her contributions to the co-development of this important legislation.

Earlier I mentioned how Bill C-92 aligns with the government's progress on renewing Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples. Canadians are increasingly aware that indigenous issues are Canadian issues, that indigenous issues are critical to this country and that indigenous issues must be addressed. This government continues its strong commitment to these issues, because Canadians want it, because this country needs it and because, fundamentally, it is the right thing to do.

We have made historic investments to build and repair thousands of new and safe housing units in indigenous communities, like those I witnessed recently in Cat Lake. More importantly, we are delivering those investments through a new distinctions-based approach. There is no more one-size-fits-all approach that is supposed to work from southwestern B.C. to the far reaches of the Arctic to the tip of coastal Labrador. We have partnered with indigenous people to create a first nations-led housing strategy, the Inuit Nunangat housing strategy, and the Métis Nation's housing strategy.

All Canadians should have access to safe, clean drinking water. We are committed to delivering on that, and we are on track to be able to lift long-term drinking water advisories on public water systems on reserve by the end of March 2021, as planned.

We continue to invest in infrastructure in indigenous communities, including roads, schools, recreation centres and aerodromes, to name just a few. We are doing so because we realize that efficient infrastructure helps communities prosper. Thriving communities lead to activities, initiatives and growth that create economic development opportunities.

We know that the long shadow cast by decades of neglect will not be erased overnight. It will be difficult to reverse, but it is possible. It is essential that we take these steps now and in partnership, not with paternalism.

This government and this Prime Minister have committed, since the beginning, to a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership. This bill is a wonderful example of this, and it is my hope, through this debate and with the support of members on all sides of this House, and in the other place, that with it ultimately passing, this bill could serve as an example of the type of work we need to continue doing.

Before getting into the minutiae of the bill before the House today, I think there may be some value in pulling back a little and speaking generally about child welfare and the emerging recognition of the importance of cultural stability being provided to children who are in care.

Interestingly enough, March is National Social Work Month in Canada. I say that because I think it is important for us to take a moment during this debate to acknowledge and appreciate the professional duties executed by social workers day in and day out right across this country. They are often placed in settings that most Canadians do not even know exist, and they are often forced to make difficult choices across stark options. They work within systems, and the decisions they make are often mandated by those systems. I want to be clear that when we talk about the need to address systemic faults, we do so without unduly criticizing those who work within those systems.

All that is to say that there is increasing acknowledgement in both the academic and operational worlds that current child welfare systems are failing indigenous youth.

Consider that less than 8% of this country's population is indigenous, but indigenous children make up 52% of children in care. That statistic is horrifying. That statistic is appalling. However, that is only part of the story. Far too frequently, non-indigenous social workers come into communities that are not theirs, apply an artificial standard without any context for the communities they are in, and take children away from their mothers, grandmothers and aunties. They take them away from their cousins and their classmates and bring them to another place where they are supposedly safe. They are safe, but alone; safe, but isolated from their culture; safe, but ultimately terrified. This happens because a child protection system built on a western and urban model has no place in indigenous communities.

Let us use my home province as an example. In Newfoundland and Labrador, once the Department of Children, Seniors and Social Development has made the determination that a child is in need of protective intervention, it assesses the availability of placement options. It is a four-level continuum that starts with family-based placements, then moves to non-family-based foster homes, then eventually moves to staffed residential placements. The issue, of course, is that in small isolated communities like Nain or Natuashish, the availability of placement options is exceptionally limited. That holds true whether or not a small community is an indigenous community. The smaller the town, the fewer the options.

What ends up happening, of course, is that kids who need protective intervention generally have to move away from their towns and into larger areas. If children are taken away from their families and placed with strangers, that has an incredibly traumatic impact on them as children. If children are taken away from their families and placed in a town where no one looks like them or sounds like them and no one understands where they are from, well, members get the picture.

Existing systems too often place a priority on an urban definition of “safety” while ignoring the developmental necessity of culture, of community, of language and of a sense of belonging. No good comes from stripping away children from everything and everyone they know. Sometimes it may be necessary, but it should not be the standard course of action. Unless we change how we operate child welfare for indigenous communities, we will continue to cause serious harm to individuals and communities.

This is beyond unacceptable. This is a humanitarian crisis. We must act. With the proposed bill in place, we would have a path forward with which we could achieve the fundamental reform required.

Let me turn our attention to how implementation of this bill would allow for greater protection of vulnerable indigenous children, youth, and families while recognizing and affirming the inherent right of indigenous peoples to self-determination.

First and foremost, Bill C-92 would help to ensure that indigenous child and family services would be based firmly on putting the child first, not on the convenience of the system; that they would be fully aligned with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's Calls to Action and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; a that we would provide clear affirmation of the inherent right of first nations, Inuit and Métis to exercise their jurisdiction in relation to child and family services, enabling communities to not only administer prevention and protection programs and services that reflect their customs, practices and traditions but to also enact laws in this area if they decided to do so.

The proposed process would not be a one-size-fits-all approach. Indigenous peoples could exercise partial or full jurisdiction over child and family services at their own pace. This would enable indigenous people to tailor the exercise of their jurisdiction to their needs.

In this legislation, we are setting out principles applicable, on a national level, to the provision of child and family services in relation to indigenous children and families. These principles would help ensure that indigenous children and their families would be treated with dignity and that their rights would be preserved. Some of these principles, for example, would help to ensure that indigenous children were not taken into care based on socioeconomic conditions alone, as is happening right now. If children were apprehended, it would be in their best interest, and they would be placed with a family member or within the immediate community.

Rather than a system designed to respond to crises, we must enable a system focused on prevention. This legislation emphasizes the need for the system to shift from apprehension to prevention, with priority given to services that promote preventative care to support families. It gives priority to services like pre-natal care and support for parents. We know, academics know and front-line professionals know that preventative care is a leading indicator of child success and positive development.

The provisions in the bill respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families mark the beginning of a 180-degree turn, a turn away from a system that allowed residential schools to happen.

Bill C-92 also demonstrates the importance of a collaborative approach when looking at how legislation impacting indigenous peoples is developed. This legislation flows from an intensive period of engagement with first nations, Inuit and Métis leaders, communities and individuals, including the provinces and territories. This engagement would continue in the development and implementation of a new child and family services system, which the bill would enable.

Indigenous families and communities are being torn apart. Indigenous children are being taken from their families and communities and deprived of their language and culture. Their rights as members of indigenous communities, as children and as human beings have been trampled on for too long.

This bill is in line with our government's commitment to a renewed relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples.

The bill recognizes the current systemic issues in child protection generally and reinforces the necessity of cultural protections in child welfare systems.

The bill would allow for greater promotion of vulnerable children, youth and families while recognizing and affirming the inherent right of indigenous peoples to self-determination.

Where capacity exists to build safe spaces for children and youth, where aunties, uncles, cousins and friends can come together in mutual support, and where communities want to end a cycle of child removal that creates lasting and widespread trauma, no children should be removed to spend their formative years in isolation, away from the supports they need to get the best start in life, away from the places where they belong. For children to go out and make their way in the world, they must know their place in the world. They must know where they are from. They must know where they belong. They must know who they are.

Time is of the essence. We must work collaboratively and effectively. We must maintain this momentum. We must see this through. An entire generation of indigenous children and youth are counting on us to get this right, and we cannot let them down.

There can be no greater measure of a society than how we treat our most vulnerable, how we treat our children. Today we can stand a little taller, because today we are moving to make it right. We are working to make it right.

I urge all members to join me in moving toward an end to this crisis with their support for Bill C-92.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we believe that the principles are very solid in what needs to be done, moving jurisdiction and moving forward. Clearly, what has been happening for too many years is not acceptable.

I have a technical question. Jurisdiction has sat with the provinces for many years. Have the provinces committed to this, acknowledged it and supported this plan moving forward? I use British Columbia as an example. I like to think British Columbia has moved forward in a very good way with the devolution of services. We certainly do not want to disrupt some of the very positive measures that have happened. Therefore, to what degree have the provinces and territories been made aware and do they support the legislation as it sits?

[Seamus O'Regan]

Mr. Speaker, the engagements and discussions with the provinces and territories continue. This is not the end game. The legislation would provide a path forward.

I would also emphasize for those provinces and territories, and for those watching today, that they can make decisions based on the principles as they are currently outlined in the proposed legislation. We have doubled the amount of money for child and family services since 2016 to some $1.2 billion. Therefore, we have the means there currently and are providing those principles, as the hon. member said, with which many are in agreement. Therefore, there is nothing to stop them.

Having said that, the hon. member is quite right. We need to work closely with the provinces and territories, and those conversations continue.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have waited many years for this legislation and I am encouraged. However, it must be said that Canada has not earned the right to be trusted by indigenous people. The government has not earned the right to be trusted. It spent over $1 million fighting Cindy Blackstock in hearings, while children were dying. In the five non-compliance orders, we saw the government being called out again and again on putting its financial interest of saving money over the need to save children. It was found culpable in the deaths of Chantel Fox and Jolynn Winter in Wapekeka.

Therefore, I ask my hon. colleague this. If we are going to move forward, we need statutory guarantees of equity. We need to have the Jordan's principle rights put into law. Otherwise, we are carrying on with 150 years of nice talks from governments about how they are going to make things better with indigenous people. Without the statutory obligations, nothing changes.

I will end by quoting the Yellowhead Institute, which stated, “While Canada is presenting Indigenous jurisdiction as the main selling feature of this Bill, without adequate funding, this will simply be jurisdiction to legislate over our own poverty.”

We will work with the minister. We will do whatever it takes to get this passed before Parliament rises. Will the minister commit to those statutory obligations to guarantee the bill works?

[Seamus O'Regan]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of funding is a very important one. However, it would be extremely presumptuous to determine what those levels should be ahead of time. We will be working with individual groups to assure them of the level of funding and to ensure they have it.

Jordan's principle is something that sweeps well beyond child and family services. It also enters into the fields of primarily health but also education and other fields with respect to governments work with indigenous groups. Therefore, Jordan's principle is not part of this. However, anybody who reads the legislation would realize that the principle of Jordan's principle is imbued within the legislation.

On the issue of financing, we will deal with that with the individual first nations, Métis and Inuit groups.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned a staggering number of 52% of children in care. When we look at the overrepresentation of children in Ontario's child protection system, it is black children. In the work conducted by Kike Ojo that looked at Toronto specifically, 42% of children in care have at least one black parent. That is more than five times the population of black children in that system.

Therefore, could the hon. minister talk about the lessons learned through this legislation that could translate to other communities that are really affected by a child welfare system that disproportionately impacts the most vulnerable in our communities?

[Seamus O'Regan]

Mr. Speaker, it is startling to think that of the $1.2 billion toward child and family services since 2016, 80% of that goes toward what we call protective services, which is a nice way of saying apprehension or some may call it abduction. The idea behind this is recognizing and affirming the inherent right of indigenous groups to child and family services and in working with them to build that capacity so they do not see their children apprehended and taken away to places where they are not able to embrace their culture. The legacy of these apprehensions will live on for decades and we must put an end to them now.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when the government speaks about principles, they are often very sound, but when it has translated principles into legislation, there has been huge challenges. Bill S-3, the gender equity bill, had so many mistakes and flaws that it was basically a disaster. I can look at the indigenous language act. The government is tabling 30 amendments as we head into clause-by-clause, and that is unheard of. We have important principles, but already we are hearing significant concerns from people who will be impacted by the bill.

Would the minister consider not only tabling the charter and constitutional compliance statement that is part of any legislative process, but also commit today that the Liberals will be open to appropriate amendments as we move forward?

[Seamus O'Regan]

Mr. Speaker, I fundamentally agree with the hon. member in the importance of consultation and of getting it right. I will quote from Perry Bellegarde, the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, who said:

This legislation is first and foremost about First Nations children and their safety, their security and their future....The tragedy of thousands of First Nations children in care tells us we need a new approach. This legislation will recognize First Nations jurisdiction so they can build their own systems based on their own governance, laws and policies. Our focus has to be on prevention over apprehension, and keeping children close to their cultures and families. We need investments to support this work, and we need everyone to support this approach. The time is long overdue for First Nations to finally regain responsibility over our children.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is good that we finally get to debate the bill, although there is great concern that we have the budget coming down this afternoon and we presume there will not be any new monies because we do not have this enacted yet.

More an a year and a half ago, the former attorney general undertook that going forward all federal legislation would incorporate the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, yet here we again have a bill directly impacting indigenous Canadians and it simply stops at the preamble that is non-binding.

Why does the government still refuse to make the United Nations declaration binding in Canadian law?

[Seamus O'Regan]

Mr. Speaker, the most important thing we can do is to listen to indigenous groups and we have done that, having read Perry Bellegarde's quote on his reaction to this legislation.

I will also speak to President Natan Obed of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, who said:

I am encouraged by ITK’s relationship with...the Department of Indigenous Services and anticipate further discussions between Inuit leadership and government as this legislation moves forward...With today’s announcement, the level of ambition of both Inuit and government have aligned to do more to protect Inuit children.

President Chartier from the Métis National Council said:

Time is of the essence in acting on the crisis of Métis children in care and ensuring the right of Métis governments to establish and maintain their own child welfare agencies....The proposed legislation is a necessary and long overdue first step to achieve that.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to rise in the debate on Bill C-92 today. I note there is concern that the the bill is arriving so late in this parliamentary agenda. There are only 10 weeks left. This was promised a number of months ago, and it finally was tabled just recently.

Having said that, we intend to be productive and proactive in supporting this, at least in principle, and seeing where we can go. Again, the government has a history of having important principles, but those principles have not always translated into legislation.

We all know the tragedy and the genesis for that, based in the residential school system, based in the sixties scoop, and it predates many of those issues. Again, I always like to reflect on my own experiences.

In the 1980s, as a nurse moving into a community, I was told that social and child welfare workers were not welcomed on reserve because they took their kids and so they could not come onto the reserve. In actual fact, the social workers of the provinces did not go onto the band lands at that time.

I look at where British Columbia, as an example, has come since that time, from a place where it was a very tense, taut relationship that could have ended in violence had people entered band lands. It ended up in a better place. Every province is a bit different in where people have ended up.

In the riding I represent in Kamloops, Secwépemc Child & Family Services now provides services both on and off reserve for its community members. For those people, this bill would be another step forward in the evolution of what the service is doing and how it is doing it. Certainly I want to congratulate the communities for coming such a long way from the 1980s to where we are in the 2000s. Things are not where they need to be, but they are certainly much better than they were.

I want to also make a contrast. We do not know the whole story, but many of us saw the video at Christmas time, showing the removal of a newborn baby from her mother and her family. Again, we do not know the back story, but we all looked to that and felt grief and wondered what had happened and what needed to be done to make it better.

The minister talked about the social workers and held them up with respect to working under the structures of the day, for which the government needs to be responsible. I also want to acknowledge adoptive parents across the country who opened up their hearts and their homes. Maybe they could not have a family of their own and they wanted one to love. They wanted to do the right thing. I want to hold them up because many families adopted children and many fostered children. In the community I represent, many of these families tried their best to ensure the children remained connected with their culture and kept the ties.

As we move forward, this is not about not respecting the work that social workers have done and not about not respecting the families that have adopted children. It is about knowing we can do better, that there are ways we can focus on prevention and do better for the children. Keeping them and supporting them connected to their culture and community is absolutely critical.

The Minister of Indigenous Services acknowledged the work of the former minister. In January 2018, an emergency meeting was held with Indigenous Services, the federal and provincial counterparts.

At that time, they all recognized that they needed to shift the programming focus to prevention, early intervention, supporting communities to draw down the jurisdiction and exploring the potential for co-developed child legislation, which is, of course, what we are here to talk about today.

Before I talk specifically about some of the technical details in the proposed legislation, I think it is important to reflect on the past government's record in this area. The Liberals like to portray themselves as the only people who have ever cared about this issue, the only group that has actually moved forward, recognizing that this is an important issue. It has been an evolution. I explained how it was in the 1980s. However, I will look at what the record was in terms of the evolution of the former government.

We signed a bilateral agreement with B.C. in 2012-13 to reimburse B.C. for the child welfare services that it provided to the 72 first nations. The funding streams were similar to what first nations and child and family services agencies received under directive 20-1, which goes way back. It provided a lot more flexibility with respect to the funding arrangement and the increased amount of funding that was available.

We also started what we called the enhanced prevention focused approach, which was launched in 2007 in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia; Quebec and P.E.I. in 2009; and Manitoba in 2019. This EPF approach was intended to provide a more flexible funding model and refocus child welfare to a family-centred practice with child-centred outcomes. It relied on a more intensive involvement of social workers to provide support before families reached a crisis. It was intended to reduce the need for placement of children, but where placement was necessary, it also explicitly favoured kinship and community placement over foster care and institutional care. It also started tracking meaningful performance indicators.

Members can see that we had taken some principles that had been evolving over time. Again, some provinces are certainly more advanced in working in partnership with their first nations communities and the federal government. However, we put it into legislation. Moving those principles into legislation and reaffirming the jurisdiction cleared up a whole lot of confusion that might have been there in the past.

Again, there was talk about the funding. The funding did change significantly over that time. Of course, it needed more enhancement, but there was a 50% increase in funding. However, more important is that there were some results. We saw the percentage of children who were placed in foster care decrease. I would find it very valuable to get from the minister the trend line to see if it is still heading in the right direction. The percentage of children in kinship care increased and, again, we saw some changes in the proper direction. My point is that we are talking about what has been too slow an evolution, but certainly, hopefully, an evolution in the appropriate direction.

What would the bill before us actually do? This is where I think there is going to be a lot scrutiny, not only in the House at second reading debate but, importantly, in committee where we get those experts to come and share with us what is good about the bill and where it has not been crafted in a way that would do the job.

The bill would affirm the jurisdiction of indigenous peoples in relation to child and family services, which has always been a very difficult grey area because the provinces have said that, under the Constitution, we need to be responsible and the federal government has been inconsistent in its role. Sometimes the government says it provides services on reserve but does not have responsibility off reserve, so it is very confusing. The bill needs to affirm the jurisdiction and to get rid of the confusion between the provinces and the federal government.

The bill sets out really important principles, such as the best interests of the child, cultural continuity and substantive equality, which is applicable on a national level to the provision of child and family services in relation to indigenous children.

The key elements of the bill that we have talked about are that it would affirm the jurisdiction of indigenous peoples to make laws in relation to child and family services, along with the authority to administer and enforce these laws consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It would commit to not interfering with existing rights in self-government agreements enacted by indigenous governing bodies regarding child and family services. That is an area we need to delve into. If relationships have already been established, we need to make sure it does not erode things that are working well and moving forward.

The area that Conservatives are concerned about is that it be binding on the provinces and territories. I do not think there are any challenges in terms of communities on reserve taking care of their memberships off reserve where they have drawn down services, but I hope the Liberal majority will allow constitutional experts and the provincial ministers to talk about the constitutionality of that particular issue. When a province provides services, is there agreement with all of the provinces in terms of the bill and is it constitutional to impose it on them when they have the jurisdiction for delivering services? I am not a legal expert, but it is a question I have about the bill and a legitimate question to ask. We need clarity. We need to make sure we are being consistent.

The bill includes a rule of precedence, which would stipulate that where indigenous governing bodies have made laws with respect to child and family services, they would have precedence over other laws relating to child and family services where conflicts arise. This is among the key elements.

Again, I am disappointed. I am disappointed that it has taken so long to table the bill. There is an agreement in the House that when a bill is tabled on a Thursday, my caucus gets to look at that bill on Wednesday so that all of my caucus members have the benefit of understanding what the bill looks like before it is debated in the House. That agreement is pretty fundamental to the proper functioning of the House and the Liberal government violated that agreement with this legislation. It was tabled on a Thursday and there has been no caucus meeting since. There was a commitment that we would discuss the bill after we had caucus meetings.

This is following a pattern. Because the Liberals have not been able to manage their House time, it does not constitute an emergency on our part and they should be respectful. If they want co-operation, they need to respect these basic elements and provide us an opportunity. For many years, members have respected the Wednesday rule and Liberals regularly violate it.

My other concern I talked about before. When Bill S-3 was introduced, it was great. The bill was a response to gender inequity in some legislation and the Liberals guaranteed us there would be technical briefings. In the House, they guaranteed they had fixed the problem. What happened? When we went into committee, we started to identify flaw after flaw after flaw.

The indigenous languages legislation was tabled in the House. The Liberals said it was co-developed and everything was great. We started to hear witnesses at committee, and there was flaw after flaw after flaw. There were 30 amendments, and I have said this a number of times today. It is unheard of for a government to have to make 30 fixes to its own legislation, and those 30 fixes were tabled late. It did not even meet the deadline. They have to table it in committee on the day we are heading into clause-by-clause. It is unheard of incompetence.

We support the principle. We want the legislation to move forward. We want to see things improve. However, we are a little leery of the ability and the competence of the government to get it right.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The member will have four minutes remaining, following question period, when the House next engages in this topic.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo has four minutes coming to her, and then we will go to questions.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a bit of a challenge to do 16 minutes and then four minutes. I think it would be best to use my last four minutes to do a bit of a summary in terms of what my comments were prior to question period.

First of all, I think we in this House all need to recognize the tragedy of too many children in care, the disproportionate number of indigenous children in care, and how government policies of the past have impacted what is happening today.

We have also talked about how there has been a bit of an evolution, hopefully in a positive way, not just in what the government has done but also in what our former Conservative government had done previously in terms of more partnership and an increased focus on prevention. That said, we still have a way to go.

We perceive that the legislation, if it has been crafted correctly, can put an end to some of the blurriness around jurisdictions, because that has been a challenge for as long as I can remember, especially on reserves. Putting an end to that, and being very clear about it, and affirming indigenous rights in that area are important.

As well, focusing on prevention is important. Many of us, especially those of us with a health care background, know that prevention is absolutely key.

That takes us to the actual crafting of the legislation. There are some elements that are strong. However, there is a very important question that we need to make sure we have an answer for.

In terms of indigenous communities on reserve, I think the clarity is good. Also, how indigenous communities will be providing services to their members where they have gone down jurisdiction and off reserve is very good.

However, I am not a legal expert. The government always talks about having to make sure we are complying with the Constitution and aligning with the Constitution. When the province is providing services off reserve, we need to be very clearly staying within the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government.

I do find it interesting that the Liberals used to criticize us regularly if they felt we were not compliant with the Constitution, not compliant with the Charter. The Liberals accused us of having a top-down approach.

However, I would suggest that the answers that the minister gave to me regarding the response of the provinces were a bit of a concern. I am not sure that we do not have a constitutional issue that we might need to remedy within this legislation.

I look forward to questions and answers. The bottom line is that there are some really good principles here, but the government has a very poor record in terms of turning principles into legislation. I only need to look at Bill S-3, which was a terrible mess. I only need to look at the indigenous languages bill, for which the government tabled 30 corrections, which is unheard of, late at the clause-by-clause stage. As a result, I am not totally confident that the government has been able to craft this legislation in a good way, but we will be giving it all due diligence because the principles are very important.

[Dan Vandal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I must say I am cautiously optimistic about the potential support from official opposition members for this legislation.

I am glad the member mentioned the co-development process. As the member perhaps mentioned in her speech, this bill has been in the works for approximately a year. There have been unprecedented consultations with the indigenous community. I believe there were upwards of 70 meetings with thousands of individuals who were consulted on the legislation. In fact, Senator Murray Sinclair, former chairman of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, has said that the consultations that were done for Bill C-92 are a model for implementing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action in a meaningful and direct way.

That encourages me, as do the comments that were made. I am wondering if the member could comment on the importance of the consultation for this bill.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when we have heard the government proclaim in the past that it consulted properly, it has turned out to be an absolute mess. I look at Bill S-3 as an example. We can also look at the Trans Mountain pipeline. In this case, the Liberal government claimed that it would do a better job than the Conservatives had done and that it was going to do that job properly, and what happened? There was a court decision, and the Liberal government absolutely blew it.

Again, I will wait to hear what is said by the many groups at committee as they bring their expertise to the table and tell us what was done properly and what was done improperly. Forgive me if I do not have full confidence that the Liberals have actually done what they said they would do. It is because I have looked at their history in this Parliament in terms of their government's legislative and consultative process.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague. I have worked with her on a number of these files and I have enormous respect for her.

My concern is that when I speak with indigenous communities, I hear that the Canadian government has not earned their trust in order to deal with a progressive response to the long-standing policy of destroying indigenous families. With the Liberal government, it comes down to the continual refusal, except through court battles, to actually fund services properly. The Liberal government was found guilty of chronic institutional underfunding of child welfare by the Human Rights Tribunal, yet it spent over $1 million continuing to fight compliance order after compliance order while children were dying, and in each of the compliance orders, the tribunal found that the Government of Canada was always putting the short-term financial interests of the department ahead of the needs of children.

The government does not seem to want to legislate the Jordan's principle obligation and it does not want to legislate its obligation to ensure statutory funding, so how can indigenous communities expect that they are going to see any different result this time around from the nice words of the Canadian government?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to acknowledge the hard work and the fierce advocacy my colleague has given at all times since I have known him here in this House.

Sometimes the words the government uses are good. I have used the example before, but it is so perfect I want to use it again: The government has this great bedside manner and says all the right things, but when it actually comes to being the surgeon, the government is the last person one wants doing the surgery because it cannot execute. It is very good at saying things that make people feel good and that encourage them, but when it comes to the execution, it has been disappointment after disappointment.

Another example is the murdered and missing indigenous women inquiry, which seems to have stumbled and fumbled along. Hopefully something good will come out of it when the report is finally released.

There have been so many areas where, in spite of the good words, there has been stumble after stumble.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo for her consistent and compassionate work on this file.

I have two questions in relation to this bill. The first is about priorities. She alluded to her concern about the execution of the Liberals' very good early rhetoric on reconciliation with very little follow-through. I would like her thoughts on all of these pieces of legislation being quickly tabled in the final months of government, which speaks a lot to priorities.

The second question would be about jurisdiction. It appears that the government has some constitutional issues related to the division of powers between the federal government and the provinces, and clearly does not have a prolonged approach to working with provinces on child services in areas that clearly are within their jurisdiction constitutionally.

Could she speak to those two issues?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, those are two absolutely critical areas that have been identified.

The government promised that this legislation would be introduced in January. I remember a press conference in December over a year ago, but we actually did not see the bill until the end of February. As I said, the Liberals' lack of planning and getting it done does not constitute an emergency on our part. This is important legislation. They failed to get it to the table in a timely way. We will do what is appropriate, with good due diligence.

On the other areas, I specifically asked the minister if he had a statement regarding the legislation's charter and constitutional compliance. He did not acknowledge that one way or the other. I also asked if there were any problems. Had he talked to the provinces? He said something about wanting the provinces to get on board. We cannot just brush away that issue. Especially as it relates to services that have not been drawn down by first nations institutions and where services are delivered off reserve by the provinces, we have an issue we need to understand, and we need to make sure that we get it right.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Her riding is next to mine. We share borders, and we also share overlapping territories with the indigenous people in the area. I certainly know how well she has worked with the people of the Tk’emlúps nation and the people around the riding, indigenous and non-indigenous.

The member has pointed out a number of things. We did not get a chance to discuss the legislation at caucus. The Liberals dropped it last Thursday, before we went on a constituency two-week stretch, so we have not had a chance to discuss it.

She also brought up some serious issues with draft legislation or legislation we have seen brought to the House by the government. I turn to Bill C-69. I believe that there were over 300 amendments presented by the governing party. The party that drafted the bill had to submit 300 amendments to Bill C-69.

The member mentioned the amendments to the indigenous languages bill, amendments from the government that drafted the legislation in the first place. They just cannot seem to get it right.

I would like to ask the member if she has questions about this bill or if she would like to have a little more time to actually look at it before endorsing it or not.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that in their haste to move it through the system, they make sure that we have the opportunity to do our due diligence. As I indicated, with Bill S-3, we were reassured that it was going to fix the court-imposed decision. It was going to fix the issue that had been identified. However, it took only the first two or three witnesses before we saw that this would not fix the problem.

Again, we have an important piece of legislation in terms of what it needs to accomplish and what we should try to accomplish. Have they actually accomplished it? We will need to see.

Child and family services in the area we represent in terms of shared territory is a group that is doing a really good job, both on and off reserve. They have a partnership. They have been moving along. I see this legislation perhaps giving them the next nudge in terms of what they are doing and where they are going. However, we need to hear not just from chiefs and national organizations but from people on the ground who are delivering services to make sure that the bill would do what we want it to do.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to rise and speak on behalf of the people of Timmins—James Bay, particularly today, a historic day, when we are dealing with the need to reform the badly broken child welfare system and Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

I will say at the outset that we have waited a long time for this legislation. However, it has to be done right, because Canada has not earned the trust to have the right to make decisions about indigenous children. If we are going to move forward, we need to see a firm legislative commitment from the government that it will live up to its obligations, because we are talking about the lives of children.

I want to begin by mentioning some of these children who have died in the last two years. Tammy Keeash was taken from her home, where she was poor and indigenous, by a state that said it would keep her safe. She was found dead in the McIntyre Floodway in Thunder Bay. She was 14 years old. There was Chantel Fox; Kanina Sue Turtle; Jolynn Winter; Jenera Roundsky; Azraya Kokopenace; Courtney Scott, from Fort Albany; and Tina Fontaine.

I have met the Kokopenace family in Grassy Narrows. It is a family that has been poisoned by the corporate crimes in Grassy Narrows, where 80% of the children are suffering from contamination and poison. Little Azraya was taken from her family to be made safe, and she was found dead on the streets of Kenora.

Courtney Scott was taken from Fort Albany and died thousands of kilometres from home. I heard her younger sister speak. What she said of the treatment of indigenous children today, in 2019, in the child welfare system, will shock Canadians. They have to understand that what happened with the abuse in the residential schools is going on today.

Our nation has been very moved by the story of Chanie Wenjack. We all thought how amazing was this moment of Canada coming together to hear the story of that little boy trying to get home to Marten Falls. However, there are 165,000 children like Chanie Wenjack who are trying to find their way home.

If we do one thing in this Parliament, we are going to make sure that the legislation is done right. We are not going to do what has been done year in, year out, decade after decade, which is nice words, positive talk and all the oversight from the Auditor General, the Parliamentary Budget Officer and all the great committees that have looked into the abuse and neglect of indigenous children. Children are still dying to this day and are continuing to die.

We will begin by talking about Tina Fontaine. I urge my colleagues to read the report on how the system failed little Tina. She was taken from her home by the white state. People promised that they would keep her safe. They put her up in a hotel and left her on the streets of Manitoba. The Manitoba government does not even track the number of children they leave in hotels. In her final days, when she was listed as a missing person, she had contact with paramedics, police and child welfare services, and not one of them came to her aid, even though it was known that she was being preyed upon by a 62-year-old meth addict. When she tried to get help, she was told to ride her bike to a shelter.

It was the state's obligation to protect this child, and she was found murdered in the Red River. I always think of the powerful words of Sergeant O’Donovan, who found her body. He said that if it had been a litter of puppies, Canadians would be outraged. However, it was just another little indigenous girl.

This is what we here today to talk about fixing. There are many elements in this bill that I think are very reassuring in terms of the language of indigenous control of indigenous communities. The right of indigenous families and communities to decide the future of their own children has to be the beginning of the end of colonialism, because colonialism was constructed on the destruction of the Indian family.

However, unless we see the legislative elements that actually force the federal government to live up to its obligations, we will not be all that much further ahead, because Canada as a nation has used great and beautiful words for a long time and has failed indigenous children. It has simply not earned the right to be trusted on this.

This bill today comes to us after five non-compliance orders by a human rights tribunal that has forced the government into compliance with its legal obligations. The previous government spent nearly $6 million fighting Cindy Blackstock.

Michael Wernick, who is now retired, was the deputy minister who was involved in spying on Cindy Blackstock, because the government saw a woman who was speaking up for children as a threat to the Government of Canada.

It did not start today and it did not start with the current government or the previous government or the government before that. It goes all the way back to the decision that was made in the taking of the land and the breaking of the treaties. The fundamental principle was to take the Indian children away from their families and to destroy who they were as a people, which meets one of the key international tests of genocide.

Duncan Campbell Scott did not invent the residential school system, but he certainly perfected it. When he was faced with the appalling deaths of children in the residential schools from the chronic, systemic, deliberate underfunding by the federal government, he said:

It is readily acknowledged that Indian Children lose their natural resistance to illness by habituating so closely in the residential schools and that they die at a much higher rate than in their villages. But this does not justify a change in the policy of this department which is geared toward a final solution of our Indian problem.

The term “final solution” was a homemade Canadian concept, and it was based on the destruction of the Indian people.

Why do we have to talk about history? It is one thing I have learned as a white guy. People say, “Why are we always talking about what happened back then?” We cannot go into any indigenous community without knowing how we got here. If we do not know how we got here, we do not know how we are going to go forward. It was the residential schools.

By the 1950s, the federal government realized that residential schools had been an abject failure, not for the abuse, the torture and the rape of the children, and not for the horrific low results of education. The government decided that it was a failure because it failed in its fundamental job of assimilation, so it decided to use the child welfare system. There was nothing accidental about the sixties scoop. The sixties scoop was a deliberate federal policy to take children far way from their identity and to basically turn them into white children.

In the book on residential schools by John Milloy, he writes:

Fostering was seen as a most effective method of breaking through the welfare bottleneck and ultimately, in tandem with integration, of closing [the residential] schools.... It had...the added allure of financial reward.... Children in foster homes could “be cared for less expensively since the maintenance costs are on the average less than for residential school placement”....

This was always the principle. It was about the destruction of identity while saving the taxpayers money. That is the fundamental principle that has led to the chronic underfunding of indigenous schools. It is the principle that has led to so much suffering and suicide in my own region, where we have had over 600 suicide deaths, almost entirely of youth, since the 1980s.

Governments in and governments out make all kinds of promises, but nothing changes. This was the fundamental principle Cindy Blackstock started to fight over 12 years ago with the federal government, that there was not anything accidental about what was happening in the child welfare system; it was a deliberate federal government policy of chronic underfunding by up to 40%.

At a certain point in the 1970s and 1980s, the government began to talk about indigenous control of child welfare, but the indigenous people were only allowed to control a broken, underfunded system. It is ironic that one of the only times the department of Indian affairs will agree to spend more money on children is when they are being taken from their families. That has been the policy. The sixties scoop has been called the millennial scoop. It is the 2018 and the 2019 scoop. There are more children in the control of the state now than there were at the height of the residential schools. The policies are still there.

When I see Bill C-92 and I hear talk about how we are going to move towards indigenous control and the indigenous right to develop their own family structures that are protected, where children are put into safe and culturally appropriate environments, I feel that is a great moment. However, if we do not see the legal statutory obligation of the federal government to close the funding gap, it is just a carry-on.

The ruling that the federal government was found guilty of systemic human rights abuse against indigenous children, in 2016, was a landmark moment, and I was very proud when the Prime Minister said that the government would not fight that ruling, but he did fight that ruling.

He fought that ruling to the tune of $1 million. He fought it through five non-compliance orders and each time the Human Rights Tribunal found that the federal government was choosing its own financial interests over the interests of children. In the third non-compliance order, the tribunal found “the definition of Jordan’s Principle adopted by Canada was a calculated, analyzed and informed policy choice based on financial impacts and potential risks rather than on the needs or the best interests of First Nations children, which Jordan’s Principle is meant to protect and should be the goal of Canada’s programming”.

In that third non-compliance order the tribunal found Canada culpable in the deaths of Jenna Roundsky, Chantel Fox and Jolynn Winter because it knew that these children in Wapekeka were at risk. There was a suicide cluster and the government opted not to help those children because it said the funding request came at an awkward time. The government insisted that the lives of those children had to fit within the priorities of the Department of Indian Affairs, not that the Department of Indian Affairs was obligated to those children.

The Human Rights Tribunal found the government culpable in the deaths of these children. These were beautiful young children and they were loved. The failure of the government to respond in Wapekeka kicked off a horrific suicide crisis and we are still picking up the pieces.

I was in Thunder Bay with my good friend Sol Mamakwa, where we met with the family of a young suicide victim. How do we talk to a family in a community that has lost so many children? That child was taken from her family by the policies of this state and the Liberal government because it will not fund high schools in her community, so she was living in a boarding house at age 14 in Thunder Bay.

These are the ongoing deaths and suffering and abuse that result from this underfunding.

The fourth Human Rights Tribunal ruling found Canada's continued reliance on the incremental approach to equality fosters the same discrimination that spurred the initial complaint.

When Parliament ordered the Liberal government to end the shortfall in child welfare of $158 million, the government said if it was forced to spend that money it would be like throwing confetti around. The government had been found guilty of systemic underfunding, but it felt that if it was forced to end the systemic underfunding it would be a waste of money. The Liberals tell us that incremental change is the path forward and that things take time.

I think of Dr. Martin Luther King's incredible statement from a Birmingham jail that asked how we tell people who have been denied rights for 100 and some years to wait and change will come one day. The change has to come today.

Quite simply, we have to start from the principle that Canada has not earned and Canada has never had the credibility or the right to be trusted with the lives of indigenous children.

If the government comes forward with a recognition of its culpability, a recognition of humility, a recognition that we begin the transformation of our fundamental relationship by saying that the future lies with the children, that the rights of the children will be protected, that the basic family units and the cultural units of indigenous communities will no longer be targeted and undermined and destroyed through the chronic systems of the broken child welfare system, the broken education system and the failed housing system and mould crisis, that the lives of children will become the most valuable thing that we cherish in this country, we will be the nation we were meant to be.

When I look at this legislation I see good language, but we need to have it written into law. Jordan's principle has to be written into law because it was the government's continued interpretation of Jordan's principle that was found discriminatory. The statutory obligations to equity have to be written into law because the government cannot be trusted.

When I hear the indigenous services minister say that the government will sign the agreements band by band, nation by nation, community by community, and to trust him, there is no reason to trust. I respect the new indigenous services minister but in my many years here I have seen good Indian affairs ministers, I have seen bad Indian affairs ministers, I have seen lazy Indian affairs ministers and I have seen racist Indian affairs ministers.

The only thing I ever saw change in those 15 years was the concerted, unrelenting legal pressure to force the department to live up to its obligations. Whether we have a good Indian affairs minister or a bad one or an indifferent one, it does not make a difference. These are the legislative responsibilities.

What is it that we want out of this? We want to have clearly written into law the obligations of the federal government to recognize the jurisdiction of indigenous nations and organizations, and we support that. We want it written into law that they will respect and clarify what the best interests of the child are so that it is not vague, so that we will have strong national standards for ensuring equitable treatment with equitable funding. Without equitable funding we cannot move forward.

We want accountability measures for Canada that hold the government to account. We can see what has happened in Manitoba with the Tina Fontaine ruling, where the Conservative government said that with the Tina Fontaine tragedy there were no lessons to be learned. It is a travesty when so many children are on the streets of Winnipeg because of the broken system in Manitoba. In Ontario, the Doug Ford government cancelled the child advocate's office, the one voice for the most marginalized children, speaking up for children who had been sexually or physically abused, children who had died in the system. If we do not have those mechanisms to protect children, the system will continue to destroy lives and we will continue to see the loss of children.

We want to work with the government. We want to do whatever it takes to move the legislation forward but we will not go along with just more words, not after the deaths of so many, not after the Human Rights Tribunal, not after the work of young Cree leaders like Shannen Koostachin, who called out the government for its systemic failure to support the children.

We have to put the lives and the rights of children as a top priority. I have to say that it is going to cost a lot of money to meet those 150 years of broken promises, but I can tell colleagues that there is not a single greater investment that can be made in this nation than in the lives of the indigenous children who are on the reserves, on the streets and in the communities across our country. This is a young generation who are not sitting back, a young generation who are not going to be told what to do, a young generation that understands that hope is made real when it is given the opportunity to make change.

That is when reconciliation will be made real. Without that commitment by the federal government we are just continuing the long broken pattern.

I call on my colleagues in the government. We will do whatever it takes on our side to move this legislation through. However, this legislation has to work in the interests of children because Canada has not earned the right to be trusted with the rights and the lives of indigenous children.

The House resumed from March 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

I rise to speak to Bill C-92, which, if passed, would be a significant step forward in the process of reconciliation and in the renewal of the relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples.

Bill C-92 sets out the legislative framework and the principles needed to guide work among first nations, Inuit and Métis nations, provincial and territorial partners, and the Government of Canada to achieve truly meaningful reform in child and family services.

The bill before us follows wide-ranging and intensive engagement with indigenous partners, provincial and territorial representatives, youth, in particular youth who have lived experience in the child and family welfare system, and experts and advocates.

In January 2018, our government held an emergency national meeting on indigenous child and family services to collaborate on finding solutions to keep families together. In the report on the emergency meeting, the overarching theme that emerged was summarized as follows: “It is clear that the time is now to work towards transferring jurisdictional control from the federal government to First Nations, the Inuit and the Métis Nation through legislation”.

The minutes go on to say:

Legislative reforms are needed that respect and promote the rights of Indigenous peoples to lead the systems, developing standards and practices that reflect Indigenous laws and cultural practices, where the First Nations, Inuit and the Métis Nation have the right to look after their children and children and youth have rights to be raised in language and culture.

Legislative reforms are needed that respect and promote the rights of Indigenous peoples to lead the systems, developing standards and practices that reflect Indigenous laws and cultural practices.

At the end of the emergency meeting, the Government of Canada made six commitments to address the overrepresentation of indigenous children and youth in care in Canada.

First, it will continue to fully implement the orders from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, including Jordan's principle, and reform first nations child and family services, including by moving to a flexible funding model.

Second, it will work with partners to shift the focus of programming to culturally appropriate prevention, early intervention and family reunification.

Third, it will also work with our partners to support communities in drawing down jurisdiction in child and family services, including exploring co-developed federal legislation.

Fourth, it will participate in and accelerate the work at tripartite and technical tables that are in place across the country in supporting reform.

Fifth, it will support Inuit and Métis leadership in their work to advance meaningful, culturally appropriate reform of child and family services.

Sixth, it will create a data strategy with the provinces, territories and indigenous partners to increase interjurisdictional data collection, sharing and reporting to better understand the rates and reasons for apprehension.

Similar calls for legislation have come from call to action 4 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission as well as the National Advisory Committee on First Nations Child and Family Services and were reflected in the Assembly of First Nations' resolutions of May and December 2018, to name a few.

Throughout the summer and fall of that year, this government actively engaged with national, regional and community organizations and with individuals, nearly 2,000 across 65 meetings, to co-develop a legislative approach that has brought us to this point.

As a result of this intensive engagement process, on November 30, 2018, the former minister of Indigenous Services stood together with national indigenous leaders to announce that the Government of Canada would introduce co-developed federal legislation on indigenous child and family services.

I am heartened to share the words of Senator Murray Sinclair, former chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, who called these engagements “a model for implementing the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions Call-to-Actions in a meaningful and direct way.”

This is engagement that will continue as the legislation is implemented and afterward through the exploration of a national transition governance structure, with a distinctions-based underpinning, that would have representation from indigenous partners, provinces and territories.

The group could, for example, identify tools and processes to help increase the capacity of communities as they make progress toward assuming responsibility for child and family services. Such a committee could also assess gaps and recommend mechanisms, as needed, to assist with implementation, in the spirit of partnership and in the spirit of co-operation. In addition, Bill C-92 would provide a review of the legislation every five years, in collaboration with Métis, Inuit and first nation partners.

The bill is entirely consistent with our government's commitment to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action and our commitments under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The bill has two objectives. First is to affirm the inherent right of indigenous peoples to self-determination in relation to child and family services. The bill is formed on that foundation and would provide flexible pathways for indigenous groups across Canada to determine a way forward that would best meet the needs of their children, families and communities. Second, the bill would set out guiding principles that would guide the provision of child and family services to indigenous children in nearly every region and every jurisdiction throughout this great country.

These principles are national in scope. They are a base standard to ensure that all services for first nation, Inuit and Métis children are provided in a manner that takes into account the individual child's needs, including the need to be raised with a strong connection to the child's family, culture, language and community.

These principles are the following: the best interests of the child, cultural continuity and substantive equality. Setting these standards is in line with TRC call to action 4, which calls for the establishment of national standards, and with what we heard from partners and community members during the extensive engagement process across Canada. To be clear, these are minimum base standards that can be built upon and adapted by communities to meet their unique cultures as well as their unique traditions.

Participants also agreed that the proposed legislation should emphasize the importance of keeping indigenous families together through the implementation of prevention services and early intervention, measures that promote family preservation and reunification.

The legislation would propose an order of preference for placement: first, the family; then the extended family, other members of the community and other indigenous families; then a non-indigenous adult. The placement order is intended to ensure that children remain connected to their culture and their community and that they preserve their attachment and emotional ties to the family.

The bill would establish the importance of preventive care over apprehension. This legislation would give priority to child and family services that promote preventive care, including prenatal services, over the provision of services that promote the removal of a child at the time of birth.

Focusing on preventive care would help promote bonding between mothers and newborns and family unification and attachment and would prevent the removal of newborns. These principles, child-centred and family-centred, were referenced repeatedly throughout the engagement sessions, as was the critical importance of prevention programs.

It is clear that services provided to indigenous children and families should respect and respond in a way that is tailored to their needs and unique cultural experiences. Considerable emphasis was placed on the importance of culture and maintaining the health and well-being of children and families, including through community support networks and the involvement of elders.

It was also clear from the engagement process that federal legislation must respect the inherent right of first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples to self-determination.

This legislation starts at the point of affirming the inherent right of indigenous peoples to oversee child and family services and sets out flexible pathways for indigenous groups to create their own laws that best meet the needs of their children and their communities. Indeed, if an indigenous group chose to establish its own laws through this mechanism, the legislation makes it clear that in the case of a conflict between indigenous law and a provincial or a federal law, the indigenous law would prevail. For added clarity, the bill would not prevail over any existing treaties, self-government agreements or other agreements that already address indigenous child and family services, though communities could choose to adopt it in these situations.

Partners emphasized that the concept of one-size-fits-all is entirely inappropriate in this situation. Any federal legislation on child and family services must recognize that the needs, desires and priorities of indigenous communities in child and family services vary from one community to another and from one province to another and can evolve and change over time. As a result, there was broad consensus that federal, provincial and territorial mechanisms to support indigenous child and family services should have the flexibility needed to address a range of circumstances and variables.

Importantly, the bill also states that an indigenous child would not be apprehended on the basis of socio-economic conditions alone. This is something we heard loud and clear from partners during the consultation process. Indeed, the principle of substantive equality, the third of the guiding principles, is critical to ensuring that the focus of all providers remains on achieving equitable outcomes and equal opportunities for indigenous children and their families.

Substantive equality is the underpinning of other important initiatives, such as Jordan's principle, which ensures that first nations children across Canada can access the services, products and supports they need when they need them. Since 2016, our government has committed $680 million to support requests through Jordan's principle, which has helped provide first nations youth with a wide range of services to meet their health, social and educational needs.

The positive impact is undeniable. As of January 31 of this year, more than 214,000 requests for services and supports have been approved for first nations children under Jordan's principle. Our government is committed to ensuring that this important work continues. I had the pleasure of being with the minister last week in Winnipeg, with several other MPs, where he announced $1.2 billion for Jordan's principle going forward.

We are all aware that indigenous peoples have been treated atrociously. We are all familiar with the horror of residential schools and the 60s scoop.

Even so, first nations, Inuit and Métis children are still being taken away from their families, their communities, their language and their culture at an alarming and unjustifiable rate. More than half of the foster children in Canada are indigenous. There are many factors involved, of course, but there is no doubt that the system is failing indigenous children, indigenous families and indigenous communities.

We are all aware of the appalling treatment of indigenous peoples, exemplified by the horror of residential schools and by the tragedy of the sixties scoop. Over the course of the last three years, significant investments have been made to begin addressing these issues. Our government has nearly doubled the annual funding for indigenous child and family services since we took office, bringing it to more than $1.1 billion annually.

Through budget 2016, we provided $635 million over five years as a first step in addressing funding gaps in first nations child and family services. These funds have been used to support agency service providers, including enhanced funding for smaller agencies. It has supported the rollout of prevention-focused funding models across the country and more front-line service providers.

These funds are already at work. For example, last August, we announced that the Huu-ay-aht First Nation in British Columbia would receive $4.2 million, close to $850,000 a year for five years, to support new child and family services initiatives. Some 20% of the Huu-ay-aht First Nation children were in a form of government care, a situation that led the community leadership to declare a public health emergency and undertake a major study to identify solutions. With funding from Canada and other partners, the Huu-ay-aht First Nation is now implementing the 30 recommendations of this study, entitled “Safe, Healthy and Connected, Bringing Huu-ay-aht Children Home”.

Existing pregnancy support and parenting education programs are being expanded. Family and protection support workers are being hired. New opportunities for youth engagement and cultural awareness are being developed. In February 2018, we also changed policies to fund the actual costs of indigenous-led CFS agencies, meaning that they can focus on prevention and services to better support families and reduce the number of children in care.

In budget 2018, the government committed a further $1.4 billion in new funding over six years to address the funding pressures facing first nations CFS agencies. This includes funding to increase prevention resources for communities so that children are safe and families can stay together. As part of the ongoing efforts toward program reform, a total of $105 million of funding in the current year has been allocated to the community well-being and jurisdiction initiative. This new funding stream focuses on supporting first nations communities to undertake prevention activities to help families at risk stay together in communities whenever possible and, at the same time, allow communities to exercise their rightful jurisdiction over child and family services.

Funding and innovation can only go so far when dealing with a broken and failing system. It is failing generations of indigenous children and it must be reformed. The existing indigenous child and family services system has led to what has rightly been described as a humanitarian crisis. This bill represents a critical step in addressing that crisis, and I urge all members to join me in supporting it.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to what the hon. member on the government side has listed with regard to the achievements of the indigenous communities and the programs.

The question is very obvious, from Canadians and from indigenous communities. Despite all these achievements, we still hear lots of complaints and dissatisfaction from the same communities over the government's performance. Can the hon. member explain how those two results match: what he is saying and what we are hearing from the public?

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I am very proud of the consultation process we had with indigenous communities across Canada. There were over 65 individual meetings across Canada, and well over 2,000 people participated. I am proud to say that we have the support of the Assembly of First Nations, the Métis National Council, as well as ITK. However, diversity in indigenous communities is sometimes underestimated. We are committed. We know there are concerns out there. We have started a pre-study at the indigenous and northern affairs committee. I note that the Senate has also started a pre-study.

We are going to use the committee phase the way it should be used: to listen to people's concerns and support. When it is applicable and when it makes sense, the committee is open to amendments. We are committed to the co-development process, not only to this point but beyond, at committee and working with other levels of government and certainly the different nations, whether it is Métis, first nations or Inuit.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I share the time with the member in committee listening to testimony on this particular piece of legislation and the pre-study that is occurring right now.

One major concern that has come forward is the fact that the funding is not mentioned in a wholesome way within the legislation directly. There have been several recommendations about how to do that, but the strongest recommendation is really about making sure that the language is in the legislation, not in the preamble but in the legislation.

Cindy Blackstock, the amazing woman who has done so much work on this, not only in her own organization but consulting and working with organizations and communities across Canada, has suggested that we make sure that the language in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision around equality of funding is included in the legislation. It is not about a number figure; it is about the principles that need to be in the legislation to make sure that indigenous children in this country are finally funded at the same level as all other Canadian children.

I would like the member to speak to that important piece, because if that is not done, then we will not see what we all want to see in the House, which is all Canadian children treated exactly the same and given a chance at a hopeful, bright future.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her commitment to this bill and her positive contributions at committee toward making this a better bill.

There are a couple of things. Number one, it is important to understand that we are reforming the way child welfare is delivered across Canada in indigenous communities. That may mean that some nations will want to put a large emphasis on prevention and less on removal. Initially, the thought was that when we are revamping the system in partnership with indigenous communities, it would be premature to identify specific funding in the bill.

It is also important to note that since we were elected in 2015, we have doubled the funding for the indigenous child welfare system to $1.2 billion a year. That is significant. That fact alone demonstrates that we are serious.

I was at those committee meetings and heard the recommendations. I cannot foretell what the committee is going to make a recommendation on, but at this point the legislative process is unfolding as it should and that is going to be considered in the final recommendations of not only the committee in the House of Commons but the committee in the Senate.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the need for the legislation. My colleague and I are from the province of Manitoba, where I believe the need is the greatest. In Manitoba, there are well over 10,000 children in foster care. Based on a provincial population of 1.2 million or 1.3 million people, there are over 10,000 children in foster care and the vast majority of those children are of indigenous background. When we look at this legislation, we recognize that at the very least, it is providing hope, in that finally there is a government, whether at the provincial level or the federal level, that is recognizing the need to take action. When we talk about reconciliation, this is a very positive step forward with respect to that issue.

I would ask my colleague and friend to provide his thoughts on that.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is absolutely right. Every day in this country indigenous children are separated from their families and communities. That simply has to stop.

This is the start of a process. Nobody is saying that this is going to be the be-all and end-all to address the issue. We understand that; first nations understand that; Métis and Inuit communities understand that.

Indigenous children across Canada make up more than 50% of all children in care, while at the same time indigenous children make up 8% of the entire population of children across the country. That is not right. We need to change that. We know that the issue really comes down to the social determinants of health and well-being. That is why, over the last four years, our government has invested over $21 billion of new money, not only in child and family services, but in health, education and infrastructure services, to try to close the gap in indigenous communities on the basic determinants of health. This is the beginning of a process. This is not the end.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the parliamentary secretary.

This problem affects us all. We all care about the well-being of all Canadians. We all care about the well-being of first nations and their children.

What this bill seeks to do is ensure that, when these children face certain unfortunate difficulties, places will be available to them closer to home where they will receive better treatment.

The thing is, we all know there are jurisdictional issues involved. We certainly do not want this laudable goal to be undermined by procedural issues that would interfere with enacting this law, nor would we want administrative formalities to snuff out the objective.

I would therefore like my colleague to tell me what the government has done to ensure that this legislation can take effect without conflicting with provincial, federal or first nations jurisdiction.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

As members know, off-reserve child and family services have traditionally been a provincial responsibility. That is why we have been working with all provinces from coast to coast from the very beginning.

I personally attended a meeting with the former minister and the Manitoba minister responsible for children and families. That is important, and now their own minister is doing the same thing across Canada.

As I said earlier, this is the beginning of a process. An implementation committee will be created, which should include the provinces, territories and of course the Métis and Inuit nations. Technical discussions regarding responsibility will continue there.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Bow River, in Alberta. I look forward to hearing his remarks. His constituents include first nations representatives, as do mine, in fact. I will come back to that near the end of my speech.

I am pleased to speak at this stage of the bill.

This piece of legislation is quite important. As I said a few minutes ago, the meaning or spirit behind it is good. Everyone here supports the fact that we want the best for Canada and Canadians. We want the best for our first nations people, especially for first nations youth. Yes, there are some issues. Unfortunately, too many first nations young people experience family problems.

It is sad to see that, unfortunately, nearly 50% of first nations children from many communities do not live with their parents. They have been placed in foster families to protect them or “for their own good”, as my mother used to say to me when I was in trouble. She would tell me that what she was doing was for my own good. I did not necessarily agree, but of course, in the end, my mother always knew best.

We understand that this is a troubling reality and that we need to ensure that first nations youth are treated properly. We also recognize that, in order to help children, whoever they may be or whatever nation or group they may be from, it is better to give them an environment they can relate to. That will make it much easier for them to get back on track and reach their full potential.

The problem is that children who are placed in foster families do not always get to stay in their own community, and that creates serious problems with healing.

The target is important, but we are very concerned with the fact that this issue is very touchy. Everybody would support the spirit of it, but the technical problems that could arise from that could hurt the spirit itself.

That is why we are so concerned. As the parliamentary secretary said earlier, we know that child welfare falls under provincial jurisdiction. We also know that first nations fall under federal jurisdiction. Naturally, this particular combination may lead to conflicts. There are provincial laws that may apply, but there also federal laws that pertain to first nations children.

We are not here to create problems. We are here to solve them. The bill is at second reading stage. The next step will, of course, be committee. We, on this side of the House, will do our part to ensure that no technical problems hurt the spirit of this bill, and I am sure all other members will do the same.

Since this pertains to children, jurisdictions and the fact that, unfortunately, jurisdictions sometimes collide, I feel compelled to mention the unspeakable tragedy that has shaken Quebec for the past two days. A seven-year-old girl suffered unimaginable abuse her whole life. This situation has gripped Quebec. Yesterday we were very pleased to see members of the National Assembly and people throughout Quebec come together to try to prevent such a tragedy from every happening again. My thoughts are with the loved ones of this poor victim.

We cannot look at this bill without being reminded of the fact that indigenous children are suffering through serious social problems that originate with the Canadian government and the residential school tragedy of nearly 100 years. For nearly 100 years, some 150 indigenous children were ripped from their families and placed without their consent in residential schools that had two primary objectives: to stamp out their indigenous knowledge and traditions and assimilate them into the new world, the world we are currently living in.

The scars from this tragedy are unfortunately still present today. This is why, in an extraordinary moment on June 11, 2008, right here in the House of Commons, the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, the former prime minister of Canada, issued an official apology to the first nations on behalf of all Canadians for this tragedy. It was a magical moment, but it was, unfortunately, necessary because we had put far too many indigenous peoples through this.

I want to read two excerpts from the Government of Canada's apology to the first nations. Prime Minister Harper said:

The legacy of Indian Residential Schools has contributed to social problems that continue to exist in many communities today. It has taken extraordinary courage for the thousands of survivors that have come forward to speak publicly about the abuse they suffered. It is a testament to their resilience as individuals and to the strength of their cultures. Regrettably, many former students are not with us today and died never having received a full apology from the Government of Canada.

Today we are studying this bill because, as Prime Minister Harper expressed so well at the time, a message that was echoed by the country, parents raising their children today are suffering from the horrors they and their ancestors have been forced to endure over the past 100 years. I will share another quote from Prime Minister Harper:

We now recognize that it was wrong to separate children from rich and vibrant cultures and traditions.... We now recognize that, in separating children from their families, we undermined the ability of many to adequately parent their own children and sowed the seeds for generations to follow, and we apologize for having done this.

This is why we are studying a bill today to help the victims of a government approach that we strongly oppose today. We will keep a positive attitude in our study of this bill, while remaining serious, to ensure that no jurisdictional issues will affect or slow the momentum of this bill.

Earlier, I had the pleasure of saying that it will soon be four years since I was elected to the House of Commons, and it will soon be 11 years that I have served in politics at the provincial and federal level. I was the MLA for the indigenous community in Wendake, which I now represent federally. I am very proud to have represented them in the National Assembly and to be their MP here in the House of Commons. These people have lived in the Nionwentsïo for millennia, but over 320 years ago they settled permanently in Loretteville, not far from where I was born and raised.

This community is not very big and has a population of about 2,000. However it is extraordinarily positive and successful on an economic, social, historical and personal level. These people live peacefully with everyone. They are a model and an inspiration for all first nations on how people can get along. It is with great honour and pride that I represent them in the House; I have them in mind as we debate this piece of legislation.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

When drafting a bill of this scope and significance, we know that consultations are very important. Before the bill was introduced, we held 65 meetings with indigenous groups, not just with the chiefs but with 2,000 community members as well. We have the backing of the Assembly of First Nations, the Métis National Council and the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami.

Could the member comment on the importance of holding consultations before introducing such an important bill?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I am blown away by how well my colleague speaks both official languages. I am truly impressed.

The worst thing we could do would be to rush this kind of legislation. We are all well-intentioned, but we need to do things properly.

I am pleased to know that thousands of people were consulted about this and that various groups have had their say and support this bill. Being well-intentioned is all well and good, but, as we all know, especially those of us in the House of Commons, when we are debating and passing laws, unfortunately the devil is in the details. That is why we need to be thorough and do things by the book, and that work needs to be done by a parliamentary committee. I am sure everyone agrees with that approach.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to realize that there are some flaws in the bill, as I have heard from other members this morning. The government claims to have had many consultations, but it seems like there was not enough consultation, and that is why we have these flaws.

Could my hon. colleague highlight some of the flaws that will be critical toward having a good bill?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the main issue in that case is the fact that we do not and should not push too hard and too fast on this. It is important legislation, so we cannot let things go on and then ask what will happen. As I said earlier in French, the devil is in the details.

If the French version is an anglicism, I apologize for using that anglicism earlier.

The legislation is so important for first nations people. The first thing that all of us in the House of Commons should have in mind is to ensure we do it correctly.

Sometimes we have to consult and consult again to ensure, based on the argument tabled by the lawyers, we are on good ground, especially for first nations.

There are some technical fights between the federal jurisdiction and the provincial jurisdiction. There is a lot of difficulty in being able to address each and every issue with respect to the first nations file. We need to take our time to ensure to do it correctly.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is stunning to hear the difference in the Conservative Party of this Parliament versus the Conservative Party of the past. The Conservative government fought first nations child and family services and fought indigenous kids in court.

Why did the Conservative government never act to reform the first nations child and family services program, instead fight it in court for years?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour for me to remind each and every Canadian that the first time first nation leaders addressed members of the House of Commons was under former prime minister Stephen Harper. On June 11, 2008, prime minister Stephen Harper tabled a formal apology on behalf of all Canadians and let first nations leaders address the House of Commons.

I am very proud of what we have done.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

As part of that, I need to refer to an interesting production that I was able to attend a few weeks ago, the New Blood dance show. New Blood is a story of reconciliation, and it was a phenomenal presentation. This widely acclaimed production blends Blackfoot music and contemporary music by Peter Gabriel to create an amazing piece of theatre celebrating Blackfoot history and traditions.

For all those who might be interested in seeing it, it is a high school group that is connected closely with Siksika. There are a lot of students in it. It was first performed in 2014, and it is performed annually, with new students as participants. It has been viewed in many places in southern Alberta and in some in British Columbia. It is based on a chief's life, going through reconciliation and becoming a chief of his people, and the ultimate goal of the teacher who developed this production was to hopefully bring it to Ottawa so that more people could see it.

I think it is fantastic, and hopefully Heritage Canada understands how important this type of production is, as it is done by indigenous youth in our country.

The legislation that we have in front of us comes on the heels of Bill C-91, which was sent back to the House from the heritage committee.

I was fundamentally supportive of Bill C-91's objectives. Its objectives were important to constituents in my riding.

Siksika Nation, which is located in Bow River, has already taken steps to offer an immersion program in the Blackfoot language for the first time this September. The program will be offered to kindergarten and grade 1 students to start. This is an incredible step in ensuring their language and culture are strengthened through future generations. The students need to be there. I hope this program is a great success.

However, even though I fundamentally supported Bill C-91, the way the government rushed through the legislation was unacceptable. As with Bill C-92, the government introduced Bill C-91 late in its mandate. This has left the government scrambling to force the legislation's passage. In fact, as we were in committee, about 15 minutes before we were scheduled to meet for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-91, we received over 20 new Liberal amendments to that piece of legislation.

Previously, when we were discussing the bill and hearing witnesses, I had pointed out some of the constitutional challenges that I felt Bill C-91 would have. Then we had constitutional lawyers appear before the committee as witnesses, and they pointed out the same problems. They believed that this legislation would not stand in court the way it was written.

Some amendments were made and maybe that will fix the legislation, but that is the problem with both Bill C-91 and Bill C-92. They were written too hurriedly and too late. Constitutional lawyers did not have an opportunity to deal with the amendments to make this legislation better or more correct so that it does not end up in litigation for years in court.

This pattern should not be repeated with Bill C-92, but I understand that the committee is conducting a pre-study and going through the same process. It was a piece of legislation that was rushed too quickly.

I understand that Bill C-92 seeks to affirm the rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis to exercise jurisdiction over child and family services by establishing national principles, such as best interests of the child, cultural continuity, and substantive equality to guide the interpretation and administration of the bill.

These principles are intended to guide indigenous communities on the delivery of child and family services. If the legislation meets its objectives, it would keep extended families together and in their communities, which is a critical part of the goals, but I do not know if the legislation is going to achieve that. I do not think anyone would be opposed to that goal.

Consistent with the 2008 residential school apology delivered by Prime Minister Harper, Conservatives believe steps must be taken to reduce the number of indigenous children in care. Amends need to be made for residential schools and the sixties scoop.

My mother, for example, was one of the first teachers after the transition out of residential schools to teach in what it was called a day head start program for four- and five-year-olds for indigenous children on the Blood reserve. It was the first transition for students of that age to be at home and not in a residential school.

Ultimately, this legislation can reduce the number of indigenous children in care. It is well designed, but what did we see on Bill C-91? On Bill C-91 we heard from many witnesses that they had not been consulted or that their advice was unheeded. First of all, we heard on Bill C-91 that there had been extensive consultation. Then witnesses talked about six months. Then it got down to the fact that it was actually only for three months that there was an attempt at consultations, and then we heard that it was only weeks, so it is a challenge for us to know what really happened when we hear that extensive consultations have been done.

Given that Bill C-92 aims to give indigenous communities more jurisdiction over their foster care program, I would hope that the government will actually listen to the witnesses that are coming to committee. Otherwise, this is just one more example of colonialism by the government, which the government claims it is trying to avoid.

On Bill C-91 there were a lot of witnesses with a variety of opinions that did not match the legislation. They needed more consultation. As well, when I was at committee, we once again had a tremendous variety of witnesses with different opinions on National Indigenous Peoples Day, and again it was the government making the decision with its legislation.

I understand that the first nations, Inuit and Métis continue to be overrepresented in Canada's foster care system, According to the 2016 census data from Stats Canada, there are almost 15,000 foster children in private homes under the age of 15 who are indigenous, which is 52% of foster children in Canada. Obviously, the current system is not working well for indigenous youth.

I respect the fact that the government is taking measures it believes will address the situation, even though the government waited until the very last minute to introduce this legislation. Bill C-92 emphasizes a need to focus on prevention, rather than on apprehension. When apprehension has been deemed in a child's best interest, the legislation provides an order of preference for the placement of an indigenous child with a family member or a member of their community and stresses that siblings should be kept together when it is in their best interests. That seems like a good approach, but will it work?

While I have only recently reviewed the legislation, I look forward to learning more about the government's intentions to execute this plan. That is where we will find out if it works. Just as there were flaws in Bill C-91, I trust that the committee is receiving valuable testimony from witnesses on how to fix the potential flaws in the bill and how to make it better.

I do have a particular concern about coordination of this legislation with the provinces and territories. I understand that on the day the bill was tabled, Saskatchewan's Minister of Social Services, Paul Merriman, told APTN that the federal government chose not to collaborate with the provinces and territories to develop this legislation. In the development of Bill C-91, what we heard from people from the grassroots in the education systems in indigenous communities was that there was no consultation with them, and again the provinces are saying that there was no consultation with them. This is a problem.

Jurisdiction over this file may get complicated. I hope this issue will be addressed at committee. Bill C-92 will be a better piece of legislation if the committee actually addresses some of the problems, just like in Bill C-91. The last thing we want to do is spend this time on legislation and then have it end up in the courts under appeal.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

We seem to have a little bit of time. We have time for one question and then we will come back for more questions after.

The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech. I know that jurisdiction has been front and centre in some of the discussion on the other side.

I think it is important to involve provinces and territories, but does the hon. member agree that the ultimate jurisdictional issue is that the jurisdiction belongs inherently to indigenous nations?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, during the development Bill C-91, the constitutional lawyers we heard from said that the legislation was not written for that to occur, as there were problems with jurisdiction. That was one of the problems of Bill C-91. In Bill C-92, I hope the legislation is written to actually do that, because in the case of Bill C-91, constitutional lawyers said that because of the way it was written, there was a problem as to who holds authority.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

When we last left the bill, the hon. member for Bow River had four minutes coming to him for questions.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the consultation and the outreach that we did prior to tabling this legislation. At least 65 meetings were held with leaders in indigenous communities and at the grassroots level. Over 2,000 people were involved in that. Going forward, more of the same is going to happen.

I am wondering if the hon. member could speak about the importance of consultations when something of this importance to our country is being tabled.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, having had experience in the administration and education systems as a mayor, I know that consultation is of critical importance. While sitting on the heritage committee, though, what I heard on a couple of pieces of significant legislation that preceded Bill C-92 was that while we were told there had been extensive consultation, when it came right down to it, there had been very little. I have not been on the committee dealing with Bill C-92, but I suggest that this continues to happen. It does not work unless it is done.

Again, what I would suggest to those really interested in reconciliation with indigenous youth, for example, is that they find a way to bring the play New Blood, acted by Siksika reserve indigenous youth, to their communities and Ottawa. They would see how consultation has worked, and those indigenous youth would provide an opportunity for members to see how they have changed and how it works for them.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the concern with the bill is that the funding is simply not following. We have a budget implementation act that does not walk the talk of what we see in the bill. The bill may have some broad principles, but it is a question of funding and resources. Funding and resources can make a big difference. I would ask the member for his thoughts on the matter.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in past legislation that I was involved in, that was a huge concern. There were large gaps in appointing the amounts of money and how it could be rolled out. If the Liberals really want to make it work, they should know that some of those details were missing because this legislation was so rushed. When parliamentarians are at committee, it is important that they discuss the funding mechanism in order to see how it works and whether it will work. Missing those details in rushed legislation is problematic.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak on a historic piece of legislation, Bill C-92, an act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

It is also an honour to welcome over 30 students from Mr. Dingwall's grade 12 politics class at Humberside Collegiate Institute in my riding. They are here to study xenophobia and refugees, but the concerns and the aims of that study have a link to this legislation. The link is that their study and this legislation both identify key areas of inclusion, of the promotion of diversity, and of the remediation of historical injustices.

Let us talk about Bill C-92.

Bill C-92 seeks to do two very important things. First, it would affirm the jurisdiction of indigenous peoples in relation to child and family services. Second, it sets out several principles, including the best interests of the child, cultural continuity and substantive equality, that would be applicable on a national level to the provision of child and family services to indigenous children.

Let us start with my past role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage in 2017. At that point, I had the privilege of engaging with first nations, Inuit and Métis leaders and elders, and subsequently assisting in the co-development of a different bill, Bill C-91, which aims to promote and preserve indigenous languages in Canada. I am very pleased to see that this bill, a companion bill, seeks to enshrine the importance of culture and language when it comes to determining what is in the best interests of the child.

When indigenous children are navigating our child and family services system, their culture and language must be taken into account and must be protected.

Indigenous leaders across this country have called on successive governments to make changes to address the overrepresentation of first nations, Inuit and Métis children in the child and family services system. They have been doing that important advocacy work on this file for over a decade and have highlighted the important voices of indigenous children from across the country to shed light on the shortcomings of our current child and family services systems.

It is undeniable that the levels of indigenous children in care have reached the point of what has been described as a humanitarian crisis. Indigenous children under 15 make up 7.7% of the Canadian population, but they account for 52.2% of children in foster care in private homes. That is a staggering statistic—7.7% of the population, yet 52.2% of the children in foster care. Incredibly, we know that there are more indigenous children who have been removed from their homes and placed in the child welfare system, right now in 2019, than there were at the height of the residential school system, which is such a shameful legacy in Canadian history.

We also know that often indigenous children are separated from their families and communities, which deprives them of their language, their culture, and their connection to their people. That is absolutely and categorically unacceptable. It is vital that we address the root causes that have led to this humanitarian crisis, including such things as poverty, intergenerational trauma, and culturally biased child welfare policies and practices. That is what Bill C-92 will address.

Our current child and family welfare system is failing indigenous peoples and has been failing them for some time. It is for this reason that our government is taking steps today with Bill C-92 to redress the situation.

Our goal as a government has always been to support legislation that respects the principle of self-determination of indigenous people and legislation that advances what we would call meaningful reconciliation. These two objectives were the basis for our actions taken while crafting this legislation.

Recognizing the urgency of addressing these issues, the Minister of Indigenous Services at the time hosted an emergency meeting on indigenous child and family services in January 2018. During that meeting, our government had the opportunity to hear from experts, advocates, indigenous partners, and provincial and territorial people, but most importantly from youth, such as the youth who are here today from my riding, but especially youth from right around the country who had a lived experience of navigating the child and family services system. It is of the utmost importance to continue to elevate the voices of those with first-hand experience so that we can learn from their experiences and make the legislative changes that address the problems individuals face when accessing our child and family services system.

Following that emergency meeting back in January of 2018, 65 sessions were held during the summer and fall of 2018 to engage with people around the country, whether in Toronto or Winnipeg, from coast to coast to coast.

That engagement, which was mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, engaged 2,000 individuals in different sessions, including representatives of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, as well as treaty nations, self-governing first nations, provinces and territories.

In January of 2019, further in-person engagement sessions with indigenous partners and provincial and territorial representatives were conducted to consult on the proposed content of Bill C-92.

What is critical is what we learned in those consultations. We learned that Canadians care about reforming child and family services in a way that better meets the needs of indigenous peoples. It is clear that Canadians are shocked by the statistics with which I started my discussion and my contribution to this debate. This is an issue that has been raised by many of my colleagues in the House. It is certainly an issue that my constituents in Parkdale—High Park feel strongly about.

Whether they are students at Humberside Collegiate or at any of the other secondary institutions in the riding, whether they are younger people or older people, constituents of all backgrounds have told me, “I am not an indigenous person, but I know we need to remedy a historical injustice. To do right by the colonial and racist legacy of the residential school system and the policies and practices put in place by successive governments for 152 years, we have to implement legislation to remedy those wrongs.” Bill C-91, coupled with Bill C-92, does exactly that.

People have spoken to me about ensuring that we have culturally appropriate child and family services to protect the vibrancy of cultures. I have often told them it is important for people such as me or random constituents to engage with and learn more about and understand indigenous history, knowledge and culture. It is even more important to restore that knowledge and understanding to indigenous communities without doing it in a paternalistic way, as in past practices, but by co-developing solutions with indigenous people and empowering them to implement the solutions they feel are appropriate for their communities. That is what the bill will do.

Let me explain that indigenous children are being removed from their homes and communities in greater numbers than they were at the height of the residential school system. We have had conversations regarding the next steps our government must take to protect indigenous children, and as a result we are affirming the jurisdiction of indigenous peoples over child and family services.

Bill C-92 does not provide a one-size-fits-all model. Rather, it would allow indigenous people to exercise partial or full jurisdiction over child and family services at a pace that promotes the well-being of their communities. The bill would allow indigenous groups to exercise their inherent and rightful jurisdiction over child and family services, which will result in their laws prevailing over federal laws and laws of the provinces and territories, in the case of a dispute between the two. This is a very important point, because it gives meaning to this notion of self-determination and self-governance.

The legislation also sets out a robust mechanism whereby indigenous groups would enter into tripartite coordination agreements with the federal government and the provincial government of each province in which the indigenous group is located to work together for up to 12 months to reach a tripartite agreement. Along with affirming jurisdiction, the bill also sets out principles such as the best interests of the child, cultural continuity and substantive equality around the provision of child and family services to indigenous children, applicable at the national level.

Let me pause here to say that this is something we are working hard to implement across government. The analogy I would draw to this “best interests” provision is to a different bill that I have been privileged to work on as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, Bill C-78. It is a family law reform bill that again entrenches the best interests of the child, but importantly, it echoes the language we find in Bill C-92, language that talks about the spiritual, cultural and linguistic continuity for indigenous children remaining with indigenous family settings. That is critical to Bill C-78, and also critical to Bill C-92.

With regard to decisions as to what is in the best interests of the children, Bill C-92 elaborates several factors that need to be taken into account. They are the child's physical, emotional and psychological safety; the child's security and well-being; the child's cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing; and the maintenance of an ongoing, positive relationship with the family, community and indigenous group to which they belong.

Let me restate that, because it is so critical and gets to the heart of what the bill is about: When there is a child welfare situation that involves removing a child from their original home to a foster care type of setting, we need to think about what is in that child's best interests.

How we evaluate that is by thinking about continuity in the child's ongoing positive relationship with his or her family and with his or her indigenous group. That is the key in what we are talking about here. That creates stability for the children through the connection for the children to their language and, importantly, to their territory. By emphasizing these factors, the legislation would ensure that child and family services take into account cultural context when making decisions as to what is in the best interest of first nations, Inuit and Métis kids. The goal is to decrease the number of indigenous children who are separated from their families and their communities.

Additionally, when decisions are being made about what is in the best interests of children, this bill would prioritize a shift from apprehension to prevention, thereby promoting preventive care that supports the entire family.

What does this mean?

We know, unfortunately, that too often child welfare advocates will arrive at a situation and say that a child needs to be removed from a family setting because of the conditions in which the family lives. The solution is not then to remove more children; the solution is to repair and correct the conditions in which indigenous people live. That has to be the solution. It bears common sense scrutiny. It bears logical scrutiny.

It also is completely consistent with an approach toward reconciliation whereby we accept and acknowledge historical racism and the legacy of colonialism and move forward together with indigenous peoples to correct that legacy. That is what this bill is doing by targeting this specific issue.

How does it do it?

The bill says that a child should not be apprehended solely on the basis of his or her socio-economic conditions. Instead, it calls upon governments to work with families to find solutions that uplift all family members and keep the child in that home. Moreover, if apprehension and placement are deemed necessary to ensure the best interests of the child, then Bill C-92 delineates an order of priority to be respected when placing that child, and this order is important.

If apprehension needs to occur, this is the classification, and it is a prioritized list: first, keeping the child with one of the child's parents; second, keeping the child with another member of the child's family who is an adult; third, keeping the child with an adult who belongs to the same indigenous group, community or people; fourth, keeping the child with an adult who belongs to an indigenous group, community or people other than the one to which the child belongs.

That is an important prioritization, because it emphasizes exactly what we are trying to do: We are not trying to create further rupture between indigenous people and their culture and communities, but trying to restore and enhance that connection. This order of priority emphasizes family members first, and subsequently adults belonging to the same indigenous group, community or people.

By formalizing in law the need to keep indigenous children with indigenous communities, Bill C-92 takes a huge step forward in protecting cultural continuity by taking into account the things that I have been mentioning when determining what is in the best interests of the child: language, culture, connection with family.

To give a mundane example, if a child who speaks Cree lives on a reserve in rural Manitoba and if a removal is required, the services do not remove that child all the way to Winnipeg. First, they make every effort not to remove the child. If a removal needs to occur, they keep the child on the same territory with the same community, with people who will continue to speak Cree to the child so that the child can maintain that connection to their people. It is that straightforward.

The importance of cultural continuity is further enshrined in this legislation by establishing an ongoing obligation to reassess the possibility for an indigenous foster child to reside with one of the child's parents or an adult member of his or her family.

That is the kind of legislation that people in Canada want, including those in my riding and including the very patient people who have been sitting here from Humberside Collegiate Institute.

What they have said to me over and over again, and what I have heard in my riding and right around the country when I was working in my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, is that indigenous reconciliation is the responsibility for all of us. It is not simply the responsibility of indigenous communities or the government vis-à-vis indigenous communities; it is the collective responsibility of the 36 million people who inhabit this country to move on that path together.

Bill C-92 is a milestone piece of legislation that would have significant impacts on the lives of indigenous youth, their families and their communities. It is an important step in advancing meaningful reconciliation and in implementing the vital recommendations made by the TRC. I want to thank the indigenous leaders across Canada who have advocated on this issue for years, as well as the current minister and the previous minister, the member for Markham—Stouffville, for their invaluable contributions, without which this legislation would not have been possible.

We are committed to working collaboratively with all levels of government and all relevant stakeholders to continue to advance the well-being of indigenous peoples, but as I said during the course of my remarks, we will not do this in a paternalistic or colonial way, but in a manner that empowers indigenous peoples and allows them to make decisions for their communities and for themselves.

Bill C-92 is an important first step in that direction, and I strongly urge every member in the House to support it.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of great points are being brought up today. I believe there is a strong sincerity among members in the House to improve the lives of our first nations people.

I am looking at the departmental plan for indigenous services, which was tabled in the House very recently. It was signed off by the Minister of Indigenous Services and lays out departmental plans and priorities.

The percentage of first nations children on reserve in care is listed in it, but the Liberals' goal in this area is not going to be decided for two more years. I am not talking about what they will achieve; they will not even set a target for two more years.

The report also notes the percentage of first nations children with access to proper secondary education. Again, there are no targets here.

The bill before us needs to be passed, but why is the Department of Indigenous Services presenting a departmental plan, which is supposed to lay out its priorities, without setting any targets? How are we going to hold bureaucrats, the department and the government accountable, when the department presents a plan, signed off by the minister, with targets that will not even be decided until years down the road?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have specific details about the departmental targets. However, one of our simple targets is to reduce the numbers I mentioned at the outset of my speech. As I said, indigenous children represent 7% of the population but 52% of those in care, and we are trying to bring down that 52% number.

I will also reiterate that we have made extensive investments. First, we created a separate Department of Indigenous Services, which was a recommendation made by RCAP 20 years ago. Second, we have funded the Department of Indigenous Services to the tune of multiple billions of dollars so that it can deliver the services that indigenous people need, including those related to the lifting of boil water advisories.

With respect to secondary education, I will emphasize that we are working collaboratively with provinces, which have the jurisdiction to deliver secondary school education. For example, in the province of Ontario, there is the Anishinabek Nation Education Agreement, which allows 17 communities in Ontario to deliver education directly to indigenous youth. The results of that kind of education model have vastly exceeded the “settler” results with respect to graduation rates.

Those are the priorities the government is working on.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government has opened its wallet anytime a corporate CEO shows up. Loblaws was given $12 million. Kinder Morgan was given $4.5 billion, which is $1 billion more than the government should have paid for the old pipeline. There was $14 billion in corporate tax cuts for CEOs from Bay Street just last November.

Here before us is a bill with great words, but it does not have the action and the funding that is required. As members know, some noted indigenous scholars have given the Bill an F in a report by the Yellowhead Institute. It notes, “While Canada is presenting Indigenous jurisdiction as the main selling feature of this Bill, without adequate funding, this will simply be jurisdiction to legislate over our own poverty.” The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs has said, “It does not meet the...need in addressing the humanitarian child welfare crisis in Manitoba.”

This is because the government does not walk the talk.

With respect to the most recent budget, even though the minimum amount of money required to address the crisis taking place in child welfare across the country is $3 billion, the government gave less than half of what needed to be allocated.

That is really the issue here. Yes, it is a good bill, but the funding has not come with it. The government has not walked the talk, and that is why so many indigenous communities are criticizing the government's hypocrisy. The government is the height of cynicism in presenting good legislation but not backing it up with the required funding. It provided less than half of the minimum needed. The government was not even willing to give the minimum.

Are the Liberals not ashamed that they were not willing to walk the talk that is required to make the bill's aims a reality?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite disappointed that the member for New Westminster—Burnaby is seeking to make partisan gain out of something that should be supported unanimously in the House. However, I will address his comments, because funding is an important part.

With legislation, we create a framework for transferring jurisdiction. As I indicated in my opening speech, the legislation would empower first nations communities around the country, including Inuit and Métis communities, to structure agreements with provincial and territorial partners that have key responsibility over the child welfare system. This is a matter of the constitutional division of powers, which the member, as an experienced member, should know.

I reject out of hand the notion that we are not walking the walk. I recollect the first budget we tabled. Perry Bellegarde was in the gallery. He gave a standing ovation to that budget which tabled $8.6 billion for indigenous communities across the country.

I also readily defend our most recent budget, which the member highlighted. It allocated money on a distinctions basis for education for Inuit, Métis and first nations kids. It has also allocated money for indigenous languages and $700 million to expedite the path we are on to lift all boil water advisories across the country by March of 2021. That funding commitment meets our policy commitments. The characterization by the member opposite is simply false.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation would put into law what indigenous nations have been asking for generations, which is the ability to do what is right by their communities, children and families. The crux of it is the affirmation of inherent jurisdiction of their territories and nations.

Could the hon. member speak about the importance of affirmation of inherent jurisdiction?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for his work as parliamentary secretary and for his leadership with the Métis community. The notion of inherent jurisdiction is fundamental. It is fundamental toward a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples, which informs everything we are attempting to do as a government. It is also fundamental to something that an NDP member raised in the House and we rightfully supported it, which is UNDRIP. I believe it was Bill C-262 on inherent jurisdiction, governance and control over the services delivered to indigenous people.

To round out the position that was raised in the previous part of this debate, an additional reason funding allocations have not been prematurely allocated in the legislation is simply because we need to ensure we are listening to indigenous communities on a community-by-community basis as to what their needs are. To presuppose at this stage that we now have some sort of crystal ball we can look into to verify exactly which community needs what level of funding would put the cart before the horse and not empower indigenous communities to make that determination for themselves.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are pre-studying this legislation at committee. Numerous witnesses have made it very clear that they do not feel they were part of a co-development process. They may have been included in some discussions, but a lot of those were done very last minute and quickly.

The top three issues we hear from folks in committee are around jurisdiction, accountability and funding. All witnesses, which I happen to agree with, have been very clear that this is not a question around funding of a dollar amount. It is about ensuring that within the legislation there are actual principles of what that funding will look like. This is key. Witnesses are saying that if this is not part of the legislation, it will be considered hollow legislation.

I hope and believe that we in the House care about indigenous children and we do not want this to be hollow legislation.

Could we see some of that language put into the legislation? We have had recommendations that the principles in the Human Rights Tribunal around funding be in it. Even some of the information about those principles in the preamble could be put in the legislation. We need to see that action taken. Unless there are actual principles, not dollars but principles, about funding in the legislation, it will become a hollow bill. It will be a deep shame to this Parliament if that happens.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, jurisdiction, accountability and funding are extremely important points. We look forward to the work of the committee in bringing forward suggestions and proposing amendments to the bill.

On jurisdiction specifically, when we say that in the event of a conflict between indigenous jurisdiction or authority and provincial or territorial authority that the indigenous authority will trump or be paramount, it establishes exactly the kind of jurisdiction that needs to be asserted here. That is an important aspect of the bill.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the second reading debate today on Bill C-92, indigenous child welfare.

I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Durham. Recognizing that we have about 22 minutes remaining in this afternoon's debate, I will keep my remarks relatively brief to allow the member for Durham to have some time to debate this important issue.

Today in Canada, it is an unfortunate reality that the number of first nations, Inuit and Métis children in care continues to be far higher than that of the general population. In fact, according to Statistics Canada, more than 14,000, nearly 15,000, indigenous foster children are in private homes under the age of 15. That represents over half of all foster children in Canada. This is a statistic that should be troubling to each of us in the House and all of us across Canada.

When children are taken away from their families, too often, especially in the indigenous context, the language, the culture and the tradition of that community can also be lost when the children are no longer in their homes or communities.

Bill C-92 focuses on children living both on reserve and off reserve. It seeks to affirm the rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis to exercise jurisdiction over child and family services and establish national principles, such as the best interests of the child, cultural continuity and substantive equality, to guide the interpretation and administration of the bill.

I am hopeful the bill and its implementation lives up to those objectives. I hope all members of this House and those in future Parliaments hold all governments to account as we strive toward this implementation.

Unfortunately, for too long in Canadian history, we have failed indigenous communities in Canada. It is now incumbent on all of us to work together on the journey toward full and true reconciliation.

The purpose and principles outlined in clauses 8 and 9 of the bill aim to guide indigenous communities on the delivery of child and family services to keep families together and, ultimately, consistent with the call to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, reduce the number of indigenous children who live in care.

I draw the House's attention to “Canada's Residential Schools: The Legacy”, the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, volume 5, which was released in 2015. Chapter 1 is entitled “Child welfare: A system in crisis”. Unfortunately, it is not an easy read. In fact, at page 11, the report articulates the lasting negative legacy that the residential schools have left on indigenous Canadians and child poverty. The report reads:

Why are so many Aboriginal children taken into care? Poverty, family violence, sexual violence and substance abuse continue—conditions that are part of the sad legacy of residential schools—certainly play a role. The connection between residential schools and the present-day crisis of the overrepresentation of Aboriginal children in the child welfare system was painfully obvious to many Survivors who shared their statements with the Commission. Kay Adams explained that “all these years of growing up in the dorm I didn't go home to my family. I wasn't taught how to love. I wasn't taught how to be a family. I knew none of that.”

That is a very troubling legacy and it is a legacy that all Canadians have to face and address.

While there may be some concerns with the bill, on principle, we must support it. On principle, we must all work together as parliamentarians to ensure we can reduce the number of children who are no longer with their families, no longer in their communities, no longer learning their language, no longer learning their culture and history. So often, the greatest teachers are those within the community. They are family members, neighbours, leadership within the community. When a family loses that, we lose so much.

Unfortunately, this is not ancient history; this is recent history. Indeed, further within the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report, it states:

Aboriginal children were placed in non-Aboriginal homes across Canada, in the United States, and even overseas, with no attempt to preserve their culture and identity. The mass adoptions continued between 1960 and 1990.

Within our lifetime, within the lifetime of members of the House, aboriginal and indigenous children were being removed from their families, removed from their communities, not given the option to learn of their culture in the place that was best able to pass that on.

I want to wrap up to allow my colleague some time to speak, but I do want to mention a couple of points from a local level.

Reconciliation really does necessitate the participation of all Canadians. I want to highlight a couple of the things that have been undertaken in my riding of Perth—Wellington. A number of blanket exercises have taken place to help inform people of the experiences that were undertaken within indigenous communities. Local churches have undertaken efforts to reach out in reconciliation with indigenous communities.

I would like to quote from a Stratford Beacon Herald article of November 2018 about the Anglican church:

Though one memorial service can’t erase the Anglican Church’s role in subjugating Indigenous populations throughout Canada, that’s not the point. The point of Friday’s service was to continue the conversation around Truth and Reconciliation and foster a broader base of understanding between the church and Indigenous peoples in Canada.

This is a worthwhile goal for all of us to undertake, to foster a conversation and to work toward true reconciliation with indigenous peoples in Canada.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, the nexus of the bill is that we will put into law what indigenous nations have been asking for generations, which is the ability to do what is right and what is proper with their children. The nexus is really the affirmation of indigenous jurisdiction for indigenous nations to make their own laws.

I know the member is a constitutional lawyer. Could he speak to the importance of inherent jurisdiction for indigenous nations?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to correct the record. I am not a constitutional lawyer. I am a scholar. Political science is my background. However, it is a matter that I do take a great interest in with respect to policies and governing in a self-governance perspective.

We have had this debate for so many decades. The 1992 Charlottetown accord was before my time with respect to awareness of constitutional matters, but it did spark the conversation. In this matter, it is so important that we work with indigenous communities to ensure they have the authority, the ability, the jurisdiction and the opportunity to manage and work with child welfare services so the focus of the child is forefront in the jurisdiction.

Enabling and ensuring that indigenous communities have that jurisdiction is something we as parliamentarians and Canadians absolutely have to work toward to ensure the best interests of the children, that the protection of their language, culture and community is protected in the legislation we pass here to enable indigenous communities to undertake that jurisdiction.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the challenges I have is the fact that a decision was made by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. I believe the current government has now been asked to comply seven times and has been served with non-compliance orders. That concerns me deeply.

As I mentioned earlier, we want to ensure this legislation is not hollow, that it has those key parts in it around accountability, Rather than a number for funding, there needs to be accountability that the resources are there and that they are equitable across all communities. That means indigenous children would finally receive the same amount of resources and, in some cases, more if the case warranted it.

Could the member speak to that issue?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for North Island—Powell River raises the important point of accountability in legislation such as this.

Legislation is a first step, but if there is no accountability to back it up, we really have not achieved what we set out to achieve. The member mentioned the concept of funding. Perhaps equality of funding may only be a starting point, and in some cases additional funding may be needed so that an indigenous community may receive slightly more than a non-indigenous community, given the circumstances, given the needs of that community, given the needs of a particular child.

We need to ensure that indigenous children are not left behind, that we have the resources to fund the important needs, particularly in this case in terms of child welfare services, but also to ensure that the opportunity is there for them to thrive and do well, to expand their culture, to expand their language so they can truly learn the culture of their ancestors.

Absolutely, there need to be accountability mechanisms within the bill and there need to be the resources to back it up, to ensure that we truly achieve the objectives that are set out in black and white print.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before I go to the next speaker, I want to remind the hon. member for Durham that he will have about 10 minutes. Unfortunately, we will be running out of time and there will be no time for questions and answers, unless he finishes before his 10 minutes and whatever comes up before the end of the time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Durham.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I probably will take the time. I am known for sometimes going on too long in the House. I am sure my Liberal friends think that. However, this is a very important issue to me, to the Conservative Party and, I am sure, to all members of Parliament in the chamber.

Indigenous youth welfare, Métis youth welfare is an area of collective failure of this Parliament since our earliest days, and there are a variety of reasons for that: cultural, historical and societal. Looking back at those failures means that we have to look forward to make sure that we fulfill the true opportunity that is Canada to all Canadians, particularly those in our first nations, Inuit and Métis communities, who have had ties to this country for far longer than all of us. That is why it is important to see that there is progress.

We support Bill C-92 going to committee, because we do think that reforms are needed in this area, and that was called for by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Child welfare was the first recommendation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. In fact, the future of improving the outcomes for members of these communities, reconciliation at its heart is going to be achieved by our young people. It is paramount for us to get this right.

Recommendation 1 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was to reduce the number of children in foster care, in government-supported care of some sort. That was the number one recommendation, and we know why. It was because of our failed history in that regard.

This was said so eloquently by former prime minister Harper in his apology for the generations-long program of residential schools in this country. In fact, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission grew out of the work by our previous government and prime minister Harper to apologize and to make sure that we learn and never repeat the mistakes of our past.

I am going to quote from the former prime minister's apology, from June 2008:

We now recognize that it was wrong to separate children from rich and vibrant cultures and traditions, that it created a void in many lives and communities, and we apologize for having done this. We now recognize that, in separating children from their families, we undermined the ability of many to adequately parent their own children and sowed the seeds for generations to follow, and we apologize for having done this.

Those were probably some of the most impassioned and important words said by Stephen Harper in Parliament.

The former prime minister and Speaker Milliken at the time erected a stained glass window recognizing the apology for residential schools in the Centre Block of Parliament, importantly placed over the members entrance. When I gave tours of the building to young people, friends from the military or whomever, I would point out the window and tell them that it was placed there so that members of Parliament, regardless of party, when they walk in, know that the decisions made in the chamber can impact people, families and children in a positive way or in an extremely negative way. I thought that the powerful statement of the truth and reconciliation stained glass window in Centre Block was a recognition that what we do, including the debate here today, is an important part of reconciliation.

What is key, and what I am going to speak about substantively in my concerns with the approach of the Liberal government to this bill, is that it seems to neglect the central role of the provinces.

In the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report, a commission that grew out of the apology and the work done by Stephen Harper and our government, the second recommendation in the section on child welfare called for collaboration with the provinces and territories. That has not happened in the bill adequately, and that is a valid concern. I am so upset about this because it did not need to be this way.

The Prime Minister, to his credit, talked a lot about the need for reconciliation when he was running for Parliament and running to be the prime minister. In their platform, the Liberals said they would implement all of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendations. He said that reconciliation would be central to his term as prime minister.

Then why are we getting the most substantive piece of legislation on healing that indigenous rift in the final few months of Parliament, along with a bill on indigenous languages? It did not come early on or after two years of consulting with the provinces, but in the final months. It was introduced in February of this year. That is unfortunate, because we need to get this right.

Child welfare services are almost entirely provided by the provinces and territories. The central learnings many of them have experienced mean that some provinces are further ahead. Therefore, while we have a section 91 and section 92 debate in Parliament about the paramountcy of the federal Parliament when it comes to decisions related to indigenous peoples and Métis, we have to recognize the fact that a range of things, such as education, health, child welfare and victim services, are delivered by the provinces. Therefore, this is where reconciliation requires collaboration and consultation, not just with the provinces and territories but with first nations leadership. That can be a challenge.

In the last government, we sometimes got it right. The number of children in care went down by about 12%. However, it is still vastly too high. There are 15,000 indigenous youth in care right now. Fortunately, changes made in the last government and in the current government are bringing that number down, but not fast enough.

One way we focused on it was making sure that child welfare or child care could at least happen through family relationships within the first nations community, so that the connection to language and culture could be tied and it would not be like the sixties scoop or our failures of the past, but recognizing that this has to be centrally done with first nations leadership and with the provinces and territories. That is my disappointment.

I have said positive words here. However, why are we debating this in the final months of Parliament? There has been no significant consultation. If we were debating it now because the provinces, territories and first nations were all on board, I would say that is great, because the people at those levels of government who care, who deliver the services, feel that this bill is going to fulfill the mandate. Right now, I do not think they do.

I want to embody this in one tragedy out of many, one tear in an ocean of tears, in the 151-plus years of our country. That is the tragic case of Tina Fontaine, a young woman from the Sagkeeng First Nation in Manitoba, who was tragically killed in 2014. She was brutally murdered. I would recommend to Canadians the report done by the Manitoba children's advocate, Daphne Penrose. I thank Ms. Penrose. As the children's advocate for Manitoba, she is doing important work, along with Cindy Blackstock and others. They have made recommendations. In fact, we failed Ms. Fontaine many times throughout her life. We have to learn from that. We collectively have to say that we need to do better.

Ms. Penrose's report regarding Ms. Fontaine was entitled “A Place Where It Feels Like Home”, because she did not have a home; she was in care. If we look at the report, we see that all of the central recommendations are provincial. The absentee and expulsion policies that led Ms. Fontaine out of the school system, where someone could have helped her, are provincial. Victims services, health, provincial justice and addiction support are all provincial. In some cases, the federal government is not delivering the services, and kudos to the many outstanding first nations that are looking at delivering these services on and off reserve.

I ask the government this. When this goes to committee, because we are supportive of that, let us get it right. Let us use the goodwill that is here to make sure that the provincial, territorial and first nations organizations delivering child welfare services, addiction services, victim services and education are part of the solution. That is our obligation to reconciliation. It is not just through the federal government.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, April 11, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I believe it is carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 1:30 p.m. at this time so that we could begin private members' hour.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.